Califano v. Goldfarb

Califano v. Goldfarb
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 1976 Decided March 2, 1977
Full case name	Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Leon Goldfarb
Citations	430 U.S. 199 (more)
Case history
Prior	Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Holding
The gender-based distinction created by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Plurality	Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence	Stevens
Dissent	Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun

Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that gender-based discrimination between widows and widowers for the purpose of determining social security survivor benefits violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Social Security Act had required widowers to prove that they were dependent on their spouses for at least half of their support in order to receive survivor benefits, unlike widows, who automatically received benefits upon the death of their husbands. Upon being denied benefits, a widower challenged the constitutionality of this distinction.

Facts and Prior History

Leon Goldfarb, a widower in the state of New York, applied for survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. Goldfarb's late wife Hannah had been a secretary for New York City public schools for nearly twenty-five years and paid all social security taxes during that period.

Goldfarb's late wife Hannah paid Social Security taxes for 25 years, yet his application was denied. In order to be eligible for benefits under 42 U.S.C § 402, he must have been receiving half his support from his wife at her time of death. 42 U.S.C Section 402 did not impose this requirement on widows. Goldfarb challenged the statute under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Goldfarb was represented by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who would later be appointed to the Supreme Court herself. She argued that the law afforded female workers less protection for their spouses than that obtained by men, because the statute simply treated the terms "widow" and "dependent" as equivalents. Ginsburg argued that the statute favored "one type of marital unit over another," in that a husband's employment permits secondary benefits to be paid without regard to his wife's dependency, while a wife's employment permits the same benefits only if she provide's at least three-fourths of the

Decision of the Court

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court ruling that gender specific requirements for Social Security benefits were unconstitutional. Citing an "indistinguishable" situation in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Justice Brennan wrote the decision for the court. He noted that in Weinberger, an "indistinguishable" statute was deemed unconstitutional. With this, and several other gender-equality cases, the court rejected the "archaic and overbroad" generalizations that a wife is more likely to be dependent on her husband than a husband on his wife." Justice Stevens wrote in concurrence with the majority, and Justice Rehnquist wrote in dissent.

See also

• Gender equality
• List of gender equality lawsuits
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430
• Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975)

Further reading

• Douglas, D. M. (1978). "Social Security: Sex Discrimination and Equal Protection". Baylor Law Review. 30: 199. ISSN 0005-7274. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
• Lens, Vicki (2003). "Reading between the Lines: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Views on Gender Discrimination in Employment, 1971–1982". Social Service Review. 77 (1): 25–50. doi:10.1086/345703. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

A